Nobody wants to have to rebuild. This is an important point. Rebuilding isn't fun. Maybe it's more fun from a fan perspective, especially when you're frustrated by an underwhelming on-field product, but among front offices and ownerships, "rebuilding" is almost a bad word. They try not to use it. Teams are in the business of selling themselves, and when you rebuild, you lose. And it's hard to sell a loser. Even when there's a longer-term plan in place, losing is bad for those involved, and it's bad for revenue. Teams want to be in the mix, and having two wild cards makes that more achievable.
The Reds don't want to rebuild. In that way they're like everyone else. They knew coming into this season they were in a difficult spot, with some pending free agents. And the team has lost more than it's won, so it certainly looks like the Reds are about to sell. The important question, then: How far do they take it? Ought the Reds sell, or ought the Reds Sell?
The other day, I put together a trade proposal linking the Reds and the Blue Jays. The idea was partially built around the premise that the Reds don't yet want to give up on 2016. Following that course of action, the Reds would look to move just rentals, like Johnny Cueto, obviously, and Mike Leake. There's going to be value coming back. Cueto might be the best piece on the market. There aren't even that many pieces on the market. It would be easy for the Reds to justify trying again. The safe decision would be to try to compete next time, because, who knows? It would be tempting. Even with Cueto gone, the Reds wouldn't be dreadful.
But there's the safe decision, and there's the daring decision. It's the decision no front office wants to make, but I think there's a convincing argument for just blowing up the Reds. For selling Cueto, but not stopping there. For just taking over the upcoming trade deadline.
The Reds are faring poorly in the standings. That much isn't a secret. And while this same core of players has had success in the past, it's not like last year was a banner season. Since the start of 2014, the Reds have won 47% of their games. Based on current projections, the Reds will finish this year 22 wins behind the Cardinals. And they'll finish 20 wins behind the Pirates, and they'll finish 14 wins behind the Cubs. You want this team to compete next year? I mean, you can never know -- look at this year's Twins -- but you do have to think about the probability. This group hasn't been working, and it's about to lose one of baseball's better starting pitchers. The farm system is better than you might think, but it's short on impact talent beating down the door.
This year, Cueto and Leake are gone, among some others. Barring a dramatic overhaul, the Reds wouldn't be left in tremendous shape for 2016. And then after next year, Aroldis Chapman is in line to become a free agent. Jay Bruce, too, if his option isn't picked up. (Bruce is reportedly already being shopped.) If next year doesn't look so good, why bother keeping Chapman? He isn't going to re-sign. So goes the slippery slope.
Things snowball. 2015 didn't work. Because 2015 didn't work, and because 2014 didn't work, it's unlikely 2016 would work, allowing it to make more sense to trade Chapman. And then if you're trading Chapman, you're further undermining 2016. And if you start looking that far ahead, why should the Reds keep Todd Frazier? He's a free agent after the 2017 season. Maybe he'd re-sign, but he'd be going into his age-32 season. Frazier's a late bloomer. Do the Reds want to end up building around a third baseman in his 30s? Frazier is more of a short-term investment than a long-term investment. He's beloved in Cincinnati, and no one wants to see him leave, but such is the pain of a lack of success. When a team's struggling, the best decisions might be cold decisions. Once the trade wheel is spinning, Frazier enters the picture.
There's probably nothing to be done with Homer Bailey, who's expensive and sidelined. If the Reds elect to rebuild, it doesn't make sense to keep Joey Votto, either, but that isn't the sort of contract you'll see moved in the summer. That would be something to revisit around the winter meetings. We're talking really blowing things up.
One reason, as outlined above: The Reds' short-term future isn't great. Another reason: Think about the trade market today. It's practically empty. Teams are either in the mix or bad, and the bad teams have a lot of bad players. Cole Hamels is out there, but that's complicated. The White Sox might be too invested to move Jeff Samardzija. The A's have demonstrated an unwillingness to move Ben Zobrist or Scott Kazmir. The Padres might not want to give up just yet. The Brewers have very mediocre pitchers, and Carlos Gomez and Adam Lind. The trade market is bad. Which means it's a seller's market. The Reds could offer several valuable pieces. So the Reds could conceivably clean up. They could offer the best starter, the best reliever and the best position player. In this market, that would get them a boatload of quality young players. Players to more fully stock the upper levels of a decent system.
There's one more reason, too. Or maybe you could call it three more reasons: the Cardinals, the Pirates and the Cubs. The Reds aren't trying to win games in isolation. They're stuck in a division with three excellent organizations and the Brewers. That doesn't mean success would be impossible, but those three teams have bright presents and bright short-term futures. The Cardinals are a machine. The Pirates have Andrew McCutchen, Starling Marte and Gerrit Cole in place for a while. And everyone knows about the Cubs, who are only just emerging, from their own multi-year rebuilding process. It's easy to say now it was worth it. There are no guarantees the Reds could achieve the same level of success, but the Cubs are proof of how you can emerge on the other side. Because of the intense division competition, the Reds could elect to just wait it out. Aim for 2017 and 2018 and beyond, while accepting that the short-term future would be brightest below the major leagues.
Look, it's never easy to make the call to blow it up. I mean, it's easy for me, sitting here, but it's never easy for a team. Teams are supposed to be competitive and entertaining. Blowing it up means non-competitive baseball, which defeats the whole point. And blowing it up means saying goodbye to beloved and valuable players, which is emotionally hurtful. Fans yearn to sustain those bonds between themselves and the local superstars. But what the Reds want to do more than anything else is be successful for multiple years at a time. They know that. That's what should be guiding them. And if that's the goal, then perhaps it does make the most sense to bring in a wrecking ball. Of course it would suck. But you can sell people on the future, for a little while, provided the future is bright enough. With the right moves, the Reds could make their own future awful sunny.
This isn't the only way. It's a way. Maybe the best way. Maybe the second-best way would work out well enough while sparing some feelings. Generally, though, I'm not the biggest fan of hedging.
